EB-1ALaw, policy, social scienceIndividualDecided May 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAY182026_03B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A business legal consultant appealed AAO dismissal on motion to reconsider, challenging criterion findings. The AAO dismissed the motion, holding petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed final merits analysis, lacking sustained acclaim and elite field standing. Petitioner did not adequately address the dispositive final merits determination.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · Petitioner judged students' final papers at two universities in Brazil.
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner authored article published in Revista Academica in 2003.
What was missing
- Awards · Motion of Appreciation and Guinness Book entry do not constitute nationally or internationally recognized excellence awards.
- High salary · Only average salaries submitted without comparison data demonstrating higher compensation than peers.
- Original contributions · Legal thesis and role as one of five book contributors do not reflect career of acclaimed work or national attention.
- Published material · Articles submitted did not adequately report on petitioner or her work in field; some lacked author attribution.
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at field top.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner judged students' final papers at two universities in Brazil. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Petitioner authored article published in Revista Academica in 2003. |
 Awards | Not met | Motion of Appreciation and Guinness Book entry do not constitute nationally or internationally recognized excellence awards. |
 High salary | Not met | Only average salaries submitted without comparison data demonstrating higher compensation than peers. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Legal thesis and role as one of five book contributors do not reflect career of acclaimed work or national attention. |
 Published material | Not met | Articles submitted did not adequately report on petitioner or her work in field; some lacked author attribution. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion analyzed but evidence insufficient to establish claimed role met requirement. |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at field top. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.